concept characterization and technical … › cop › pm › dau sponsored docu… · web...

ADDM 5000.02 TEMPLATEConcept Characterization and Technical Description

Concept Characterization and Technical Description (CCTD)

for

Program NameDate

Prepared byProgram Office

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Click here to enter distribution letter and explanation (e.g.; .”A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited”). Distribution statement reference http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/submit/guidance/distribstatement.html.

1ADDM: Concept Characterization and Technical Description, Version 2.1Based on: Concept Characterization and Technical Description (CCTD) Guide dated 27 OCT 2010


Guidance: The CCTD summarizes the technical planning and analysis accomplished, and identifies areas of further work needed to mature the concept. The information within the CCTD represents the analytic basis upon which a material concept was developed, the rationale for decisions made during that development, and the relevant technical documentation that results from early application of Systems Engineering processes and activities.

Follow the guidance paragraphs to enter descriptions for each section of the CCTD. If a section is not applicable, label it as such and state a short rationale.

FOUO Guidance: Determine whether FOUO is applicable per DoDM 5200.01, Volume 4, “DoD Information security Program: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI),” February 24, 2012.

FOUO Guidance Source: http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/523024p.pdf

Instructions: POC-specific instructions to be added here.

References:

1. AFI 10-601, “Operational Capability Requirements Development.” 06 NOV 2013. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi10-601/afi10-601.pdf

2. AFI 63-101/20-201, “Integrated Life Cycle Management.” 07 MAR 2013. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/afi63-101/afi63-101_20-101.pdf

3. AFI 65-503, “US Air Force Cost and Planning Factors.” 04 FEB 1994. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-503/afi65-503.pdf

4. AFI 65-508, “Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures.” 06 JUN 2012. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-508/afi65-508.pdf

5. AFMC/AFSPC Development Planning (DP) Guide https://www.my.af.mil/afknprod/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-XP-MC-94-5&Filter=OO-XP-MC-94

6. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI), “Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification.” 23 FEB 2007. http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/cjcsi3312_01a.pdf

7. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01G, “(Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System .”,01 MAR 2009. http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/3170_01g.pdf

8. Concept Characterization and Technical Description (CCTD) Guide, 27 October 2010.

9. Department of Defense Architectural Framework (DoDAF), Version 2.02. http://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoDArchitectureFramework.aspx

10. DoD Directive (DoDD) 5000.4-M, “Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual.”Analysis Guidance and Procedures.” 18 APR 2007. http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500004m1p.pdf

11. DoD Instruction (DoDI)5000.02, "Operation of the Defense Acquisition System." 07 JAN 2015. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf


http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf

http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500004m1p.pdf

http://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoDArchitectureFramework.aspx

http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/3170_01g.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/cjcsi3312_01a.pdf

https://www.my.af.mil/afknprod/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-XP-MC-94-5&Filter=OO-XP-MC-94

https://www.my.af.mil/afknprod/ASPs/docman/DOCMain.asp?Tab=0&FolderID=OO-XP-MC-94-5&Filter=OO-XP-MC-94

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_fm/publication/afi65-508/afi65-508.pdf




http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/afi63-101/afi63-101_20-101.pdf

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/afi63-101/afi63-101_20-101.pdf

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi10-601/afi10-601.pdf

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi10-601/afi10-601.pdf


12. JCIDS Manual, “Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System.”19 JAN 2012. http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/jcids_manual_19jan12.pdf

13. Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook. http://www.dodmrl.com/

14. Risk Management Guide for DOD Acquisitions. https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=108780

15. SAF/AQR Early Systems Engineering Guide.

16. Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance. APR 2011. https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/23349/file/59528/TRA%20Guide%20OSD%20May%202011.pdf


https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/23349/file/59528/TRA%20Guide%20OSD%20May%202011.pdf

https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/23349/file/59528/TRA%20Guide%20OSD%20May%202011.pdf

https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=108780

http://www.dodmrl.com/

http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/jcids_manual_19jan12.pdf


Contents1. Mission/Capability Need Statement/CONOPS.......................................................................6

1.1. Stakeholders.....................................................................................................................61.2. Capability Need Statement/CONOPS; Measures of Effectiveness..................................6

2. Concept Overview (OV-1)......................................................................................................63. Trade Space Characterization..................................................................................................6

3.1. Scope.................................................................................................................................63.2. Assumptions and Constraints............................................................................................63.3. Interfaces...........................................................................................................................73.4. Operating Environment ....................................................................................................73.5. Key Parameters/Attributes................................................................................................73.6. Compliance Issues.............................................................................................................8

4. Evaluation (Studies, Analyses, Experiments)..........................................................................84.1. Common Assumptions and Methodologies......................................................................84.2. Parametric Studies.............................................................................................................84.3. Analysis.............................................................................................................................94.4. Experiments......................................................................................................................94.5. Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and Associated Data...................................................94.6. Evaluation Results and Conclusions.................................................................................9

5. Concept Characterization/Design.........................................................................................105.1. Design Description and Variants....................................................................................105.2. Operating Concept..........................................................................................................105.3. Architecture Considerations (Interfaces/Interoperability/Systems of Systems Approach /Integration)...............................................................................................................105.4. Critical Design Constraints.............................................................................................115.5. Critical Technology Elements.........................................................................................115.6. Supportability/Sustainment/Logistics Features...............................................................125.7. Cost Drivers....................................................................................................................125.8. Required Enabling Capabilities......................................................................................13

6. Program Characterization/Implementation Analysis.............................................................136.1. Critical Technologies (including S&T needs/feed forward)...........................................136.2. Technology Maturation Approach..................................................................................136.3. Test & Evaluation (T&E) / Verification & Validation (V&V) Approach......................14



6.4. Prototyping Approach.....................................................................................................146.5. Manufacturing/Producibility Approach..........................................................................146.6. Sustainment/Supportability Approach............................................................................156.7. Other Relevant Considerations.......................................................................................156.8. Schedule Assumptions and Methodologies (need date from ICD).................................156.9. Cost Analysis Assumptions and Methodologies.............................................................156.10. Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................16

7. Risk Assessment and Decision-Certain Consequences.........................................................177.1. Operational Risk.............................................................................................................177.2. Program Risk...................................................................................................................177.3. Technology Risk.............................................................................................................177.4. Intelligence Risk ............................................................................................................17

8. DOT-LPF Implications and Other Interdependencies...........................................................189. Conclusions (Capability Description; Traceability to Need Statement)................................18



1. Mission/Capability Need Statement/CONOPS

1.1. Stakeholders

Click here to enter text.

Guidance: Stakeholders are organizations, groups, and/or individuals that are impacted by or invested in the need and/or the solution concept. Examples include end users (operators/warfighters), planners, developers, acquirers, decision makers, owners/users of outputs and/or inputs to the concept, operators, testers, maintainers, modeling and simulation experts, Human System Integration (HSI) experts, technical specialists, the intelligence community, cost and business experts, logisticians, outside agencies and organizations, industry partners, and Science and Technology (S&T) communities including AFRL and academia. As the concept evolves, the stakeholders may change; the list should be reviewed periodically to ensure all stakeholders are identified. At a minimum the stakeholder list should be reviewed and updated at significant transition points (e.g., identified “Examination Points”) in the Early SE process.

1.2. Capability Need Statement/CONOPS; Measures of Effectiveness


Guidance: Document the capability gap or shortfall, using documentation from the JCIDS CBA process if available. Results of analyses of future threats can also support information in this section. Discuss the capability needed, mission tasks, MOE, MOS, operational concepts, support concepts, and any other operational information that impacts the concept.

2. Concept Overview (OV-1)


Guidance: No detail elements at this time.

3. Trade Space Characterization

3.1. Scope


Guidance: Define the scope of the trade space in terms balancing key characteristics such as affordability, feasibility, schedule (near-term [fielded in 0-8 years], mid-term [fielded in 9-15 years], or far-term [fielded in 15-23 years]), military utility, threshold needs and objectives, and technical constraints to allow proper evaluation of concepts.

3.2. Assumptions and Constraints




Guidance: Assumptions are premises that must be true for the trade space to be viable, e.g., programmatic, technical, cost, schedule, and/or performance. Any assumptions regarding how the future system will integrate and interoperate as part of the FoS or SoS environment should be documented here. Constraints are limitations of any nature, e.g., programmatic and/or scientific. Leverage work done in CBA, especially to define assumptions, boundaries, constraints, dependencies, and enablers. Some constraints may be known at the beginning of the concept development activities, but participants and stakeholders may identify more during the characterization process.

There may also be other externally imposed non-technical limitations that may restrict the range of potential solutions (e.g., Laws of Armed Conflict prohibit use of lethal directed energy against personnel).

3.3. Interfaces


Guidance: This section describes all major external and internal interfaces. It identifies those that will be available to support the fielded solution, as well as those that may require additional technology and/or infrastructure development. Both physical and functional interoperability issues should be addressed.

Ensure that the OV-1 captures known detail such as order-of-magnitude estimations for interfaces required between nodes, users, or systems, as well as how the concept is expected to fit in a SoS or FoS environment. The OV-2 and 3 may be referenced here if they are available. Identify interfaces with infrastructure and enabling systems (e.g., intelligence and data transfer) that the concept is dependent upon to be a successful materiel solution; also capture unique internal interface considerations (hardware, software, or human) that could be design drivers or risk items. Identify and document anticipated future interfaces and schedules for availability.

3.4. Operating Environment


Guidance: Early SE is performed in the context of the CONOPS, and considers characteristics of the operational environment that reflect both human and natural conditions. The operational point of view should include descriptions of the relevant domain (space, air, surface, nuclear, cyber), and may also include other environmental considerations relevant to the concept, (e.g., day, night, climate, atmospherics, vegetation, terrain, electromagnetic environment, nuclear environment, and anti-access). Relevant battlefield environment(s) (contested, denied, etc.) should be identified here as well.

An understanding of user needs, constraints, and limitations in the operating environment assists with developing MOEs that can be used to assess military utility of a concept, including operational performance (e.g., reliability, maintainability, availability, supportability, sustainability, testability, deployability, etc.). For example, chemical or biological warfare (human-caused conditions) may impact the working environment for operational crews and logistics support personnel.

3.5. Key Parameters/Attributes

Click here to enter text. 7

ADDM: Concept Characterization and Technical Description, Version 2.1Based on: Concept Characterization and Technical Description (CCTD) Guide dated 27 OCT 2010


Guidance: Capture measurable MOEs, KPPs, and other qualitative attributes as they can be detailed from the analysis. When feasible, define measures that can be related to military utility. Specific values of measures may not be known early in the concept development, but identify general parameters as soon as they are known. These parameters should be measurable and/or calculable parameters that can be used to characterize and evaluate concepts within the trade space.

MOEs can be further detailed to define MOPs as a concept is analyzed to lower levels of detail, and specific design features begin to emerge. MOPs are quantitative and include metrics to measure one or more MOEs, such as bandwidth, throughput, probability of kill, range, weapon load-out, logistics footprint, etc. MOPs should generally be traceable to Key Performance Parameters (KPP) or other parameters defined as part of a capability need.

3.6. Compliance Issues


Guidance: Identify any laws, standards, or regulations that may provide compliance issues for the concept solutions (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airworthiness certification, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations, spectrum availability, International Law, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria, etc.). Consider the operating environment, including network integration, when determining compliance issues and determine if any compliance issues should be a measure to be used in the trade space. Capture compliance risks in the risk analysis.

4. Evaluation (Studies, Analyses, Experiments)

4.1. Common Assumptions and Methodologies


Guidance: Describe common methodologies and assumptions used in studies, analyses, and experiments across the evaluation of the candidate solutions. Identify any limitations relative to conclusions due to these methodologies and assumptions. Each study, analysis, and/or experiment should define the unique assumptions and methodologies, and capture these in their respective reports.

4.2. Parametric Studies


Guidance: Parametric studies are an effective way to show dependency of evaluation measures to key design parameters. They identify the sensitivity of measures, and therefore capability, to design parameters, indicating when additional performance does not provide an equivalent increase in capability (i.e., the “knee in the curve”). Parametric studies and sensitivity analyses are particularly relevant in an AoA.

Summarize results of any parametric studies (e.g., carpet plots for weight, power, throughput, cooling, etc.) performed over the lifetime of the concept to support objective evaluation of the concept. Provide references and/or links to full study reports. Identify limitations of any models



or simulations used and characterize the risk/uncertainty due to these limitations; also identify any information shortfalls and recommend studies that could provide pertinent information.

4.3. Analysis


Guidance: Provide summaries of results of all analyses performed that are relevant to the evaluation of the concept. Provide references and/or links to full analysis reports. Identify assumptions and data sources; identify essential information that is still needed, and recommend additional analyses to provide it. Identify limitations of any models or simulations used, and characterize any impacts these limitations may have on the results. Analysis can be subjective (qualitative) and objective (quantitative); both are important, and need to be balanced with one another depending on the concept under investigation and the state of its development/maturation.

4.4. Experiments


Guidance: Summarize the results of all experiments performed over the lifetime of the concept that are relevant to the evaluation. Experiments that result in the identification of critical technologies, or that address already-identified critical technologies, are of particular interest. Provide references and/or links to final reports of the experiments; identify shortfalls and recommend additional experiments and/or prototyping to provide needed information. For example, if the experiment was not done in an environment representative of this concept’s operating environment, it should be repeated in a relevant environment, or a recommendation should be made to accomplish it as part of the AoA or elsewhere in the Materiel Solution Analysis phase.

4.5. Modeling and Simulation (M&S) and Associated Data


Guidance: M&S can provide mechanisms and environments to develop and refine concepts, and as such is an important tool for developers, analysts, and users to gain insight into how well a concept might satisfy operational needs. It is often the only way to evaluate a solution in a realistic (simulated) operational environment, including environmental, threat, and SoS or FoS considerations. Use of constructive models with virtual and live components can provide an effective venue for concept evaluation, especially when assessment of the user interface is important. M&S enables experimentation and other evaluations such as mission-level and parametric analyses.

Provide summaries of relevant M&S activities throughout the life of a concept. Provide references and/or links to information on actual models, simulations, and related tools used, as well as associated data. Specific tools and data set(s) used to conduct M&S enabled experiments, assessments and analyses should be identified in the appropriate reports. Pedigree information (i.e., verification, validation, and accreditation history) of all M&S tools and data should be documented.

4.6. Evaluation Results and Conclusions




Guidance: Capture the results from evaluation activities and summarize the concept’s ability to meet key measures. These evaluations help to identify candidate solutions, select those that merit further analysis, and then refine candidate solutions.

Summarize additional studies, analyses, and experiments needed to fully evaluate the concept. Provide rationale for recommendations to discontinue further work on a concept.

This section provides critical information to developers and decision makers as it contains the baseline of analyses from which further work will proceed. Identify M&S tool enhancements and data needs required to fully evaluate the concept.

5. Concept Characterization/Design

5.1. Design Description and Variants


Guidance: A concept may have more than one design configuration that will address the identified capability need. Document or reference possible design configurations, including candidate systems, subsystems, and interfaces; identify enabling and critical technologies associated with the design. When available, capture approaches to further validate and determine if the design is feasible. Contents of this section will contain more detail as the materiel concept evolves. This paragraph may reference or include drawings, draft performance specs, industry specs, to a level of detail appropriate for the state of the concept. Include traceable justification for design attributes, system configurations, and trade studies. Provide enough detail to be able to identify key technologies and interfaces.

5.2. Operating Concept


Guidance: Define how the materiel concept is expected to be used in the operational environment, including anticipated DOT_LPF considerations and enablers such as infrastructure, support required, environmental factors, and similar constraints. Identify whether these enablers currently exist or are new requirements to support the concept. Consider using DoDAF models and/or sponsor-provided operating/enabling concepts where appropriate to provide context information.

5.3. Architecture Considerations (Interfaces/Interoperability/Systems of Systems Approach /Integration)


Guidance: Use the DoDAF products, and augment as appropriate. However, when all aspects of an architectural view are not yet known, do not hesitate to capture what is known (i.e., provide a partial view). Document expected interfacing and interoperating systems, processes, practices, capabilities, users, and/or technologies. Consider documenting or referencing any DoDAF architectural products (including Operational, System, and Technical views, inclusive of expected human contributions and unique interface requirements) that are appropriate for the



material concept, if the data is available and the view is appropriate. Identify how open architecture considerations are being addressed. Document architectural conclusions as appropriate.

5.4. Critical Design Constraints


Guidance: Identify constraints that limited choices for concept design – e.g., cost, immature technology, requirements that exceed current technological capabilities, etc. When applicable, provide recommendations to alleviate those constraints (e.g., a technology maturation program, AFRL Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) program, requirement change). Consideration may be given to address these recommendations in the AoA Guidance or ICD development. It is critical that these constraints be identified, documented, and provided to appropriate stakeholders for consideration as early as possible; concept exploration and refinement is an iterative process.

5.5. Critical Technology Elements


Guidance: “A technology element is ‘critical’ if the system being acquired depends on this technology element to meet operational requirements (within acceptable cost and schedule limits) and if the technology element or its application is either new or novel or in an area that poses major technological risk during detailed design or demonstration.” (Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook, HYPERLINK "http://www.dod.mil/ddre/doc/DoD_TRA_July_2009_Read_Version.pdf"http://www.dod.mil/ddre/doc/DoD_TRA_July_2009_Read_Version.pdf). For additional information on identifying CTEs, refer to appendix B of the TRA Deskbook, Guidance and Best Practices for Identifying Critical Technology Elements (CTEs).

Identify the technology elements or types of technology that are critical to the concept, and provide rationale for identifying those technology elements. To the extent possible, describe the maturity level of the CTEs in terms of technology readiness levels (TRL), and recommend which CTEs require additional technology maturation.

The TRL definitions from the TRA Deskbook follow.

TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2: Technology concept and/or application formulated

TRL 3: Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept

TRL 4: Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment

TRL 5: Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment

TRL 6: System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

TRL 7: System prototype demonstration in an operational environment

TRL 8: Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration

TRL 9: Actual system proven through successful mission operations.



When completed, this section will provide a top-level description of CTEs and their TRLs that supports characterization of the concept as near-term (fielded in 0-8 years), mid-term (fielded in 9-15 years), or far-term (fielded in 15-23 years). Maturation details will appear in Section 6.2.

5.6. Supportability/Sustainment/Logistics Features


Guidance: Document features or constraints important to supportability and sustainment of the materiel concept. Identify and document any new requirements that this concept will add to the logistics infrastructure.

Areas of consideration may include, but are not limited to, such things as airfield capacity, maintenance skills, technical data, repair and supply concepts, system and operator certifications, and the like.

5.7. Cost Drivers


Guidance: For each major phase of the acquisition life cycle, identify which characteristics of the concept will drive the cost. Also describe why cost drivers may be related to technology, hardware, software, integration, logistics support, data, manufacturing, infrastructure, training, testing, production quantities, cost per flying hour, manpower, safety, etc. This information will aid cost estimators in developing their cost estimates for the concept, and can also aid characterization of the program needed to address the cost drivers. It will also help to identify budget appropriation categories (i.e., “color of money”) that could be impacted, namely:

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) (3600) funds can be impacted by cost drivers associated with the Technology Development (TD) and Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phases

Procurement (30x0) funds can be impacted by cost drivers associated with the EMD and Production & Deployment phases

Operations & Maintenance (O&M) (3400) funds for sustainment can be impacted by cost drivers associated with the Operations and Support (O&S) phase

Disposal cost drivers can impact several appropriation categories

If applicable, Military Construction (MILCON) funds might also be needed for one or more of the above phases, such as facilities construction and related civil works

Personnel and workload costs, considering appropriation categories

It is important to identify which cost drivers are related to nonrecurring costs and recurring costs. Nonrecurring costs are one-time expenditures (generally for activities that occur at the beginning of the life cycle) and that do not need to be repeated, e.g., design, prototyping, and software development. Recurring costs are repeating expenditures associated with each development unit, production unit, or deployment location.

Early recognition of factors that could potentially contribute to or impact the costs of acquiring and sustaining a materiel concept, such as data rights, can be useful even when uncertainties are too large to prepare high-confidence cost estimates.



5.8. Required Enabling Capabilities


Guidance: Use appropriate SMEs to describe specific analyses (e.g., HSI strategy; supportability concepts; logistics; communications; Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance [ISR]; etc.) that are relevant to the concept, and document appropriate results here. Two examples follow:

Consider using the AF Pocket Requirements Guide (Sep 2009), the HSI in Acquisitions Guides, as well as the Air Force Human Systems Integration Handbook (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090121-054.pdf), to provide additional guidance for this paragraph. Also refer to the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 6 for additional information on HSI.

Consider involving the operational users, technology community, and ISR support community to identify the baseline ISR support the concept needs to be effectively employed. Examples of ISR support often needed include data (e.g., system signatures, digital terrain data), target folders, bomb damage indication, and the like.

6. Program Characterization/Implementation Analysis

6.1. Critical Technologies (including S&T needs/feed forward)


Guidance: For the identified CTEs, describe the current state of the art in industry and DoD, focusing on those with low TRLs. Describe current and planned efforts to improve the TRL in industry and DoD labs in the context of the envisioned timeframe for acquisition and fielding. Identify any gaps between the current and planned TRL improvement efforts and needs of the concept. Identify any alternate technology solutions to meet concept needs. Also identify potential technology needs associated with concepts that may not meet current development or fielding time horizons for further research in AFRL, industry, academia, etc.

6.2. Technology Maturation Approach


Guidance: The technology maturation approach will play a large role for decision makers in determining where the concept enters the acquisition cycle, as it describes much of the technical work that remains to mature the concept. In some cases the path forward may be to defer embarking on a new system for several years in favor of investing in additional technology efforts. Describe the approach to address the identified technology gaps. The approach can include new AFRL efforts, prototyping, and planned technology development efforts as part of the acquisition process, and should identify when CTE TRLs will be reassessed in the context of the envisioned timeframe for acquisition and fielding. The maturation plan will serve as the basis for the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) that is submitted at MS A, and details how critical technologies will be advanced to TRL 6 by MS B.


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090121-054.pdf


6.3. Test & Evaluation (T&E) / Verification & Validation (V&V) Approach


Guidance: Describe the approach for accomplishing T&E activities on the materiel system and subsystem concepts. Identify a test strategy to verify that the concept is testable, that user requirements are met, and to validate that it is a viable solution in terms of operational measures. As an important stakeholder, the T&E community can provide valuable input here. Identify and document test resources (e.g., models, simulations, and simulators) and limitations, as well as other test considerations (e.g., ranges, platforms, targets, environment, etc.). Be sure to include any lessons learned from experiments and/or other M&S activities done as part of the evaluation of the concept. As T&E/V&V efforts are completed, document or reference the results here.

6.4. Prototyping Approach


Guidance: The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) requires competitive prototyping prior to MS B for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). DoDI 5000.02 states that the TDS shall provide for prototyping to “ … reduce technical risk, validate designs and cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, and refine requirements.” Prototyping can be done at different architectural levels as needed (e.g., component, sub-system, and/or system). Describe prototype efforts here, along with the rationale for the approach to prototyping. If prototyping was done as part of earlier concept exploration or refinement, document or reference the results here. If prototyping will not be performed, provide rationale as required by WSARA and DoDI 5000.02.

6.5. Manufacturing/Producibility Approach


Guidance: Describe the approach to ensure the concept solution will actually be able to be produced. Assess the manufacturing readiness level (MRL) of the concept and key components. Guidance on defining MRLs of the concept and components can be found in the Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook (HYPERLINK "http://www.dodmrl.com/"http://www.dodmrl.com/). The MRLs are defined as:

MRL 1: Basic Manufacturing Implications Identified

MRL 2: Manufacturing Concepts Identified

MRL 3: Manufacturing Proof of Concept Developed

MRL 4: Capability to produce the technology in a laboratory environment

MRL 5: Capability to produce prototype components in a production relevant environment

MRL 6: Capability to produce a prototype system or subsystem in a production relevant environment

MRL 7: Capability to produce systems, subsystems, or components in a production representative environment



MRL 8: Pilot line capability demonstrated; Ready to begin Low Rate Initial Production

MRL 9: Low rate production demonstrated; Capability in place to begin Full Rate Production

MRL 10: Full Rate Production demonstrated and lean production practices in place

MRLs 1-3 highlight manufacturing issues requiring attention prior to the end of the MSA Phase. Unless the concept is an off-the-shelf product or system, or based on one currently in inventory, it will likely be at the MRL 1-3 level at MDD.

Identify any gaps in the MRLs to meet the needs of the concept and recommend efforts to address those gaps (e.g., AFRL MANTECH program). The approach should identify event driven opportunities to re-assess the MRL of the products. As efforts to improve manufacturing readiness are complete, document or reference the results here.

The manufacturing readiness of the concept will be a key consideration for the MDA in determining where the concept enters the acquisition cycle as it determines whether a concept is producible or not.

6.6. Sustainment/Supportability Approach


Guidance: Document the approach to support and sustain the materiel concepts and incorporated technologies in the operational environment. Describe current sustainment infrastructure that will be used (e.g., aircraft hangars, Special Test Equipment (STE), etc.) and identify new programmatic requirements for life cycle sustainment. Provide as much information as possible since sustainability is a major contributor to the total cost of ownership analysis.

6.7. Other Relevant Considerations


Guidance: As the concept matures, unique issues associated with actualizing the concept (e.g., resources, processes, politics) begin to emerge. Capture these considerations in this section as they are identified. At a minimum, initial planning for program protection issues such as security and anti-tamper should be addressed here. Additional areas may include intelligence, manpower, budget environment, potential for competition during the development and production phases, potential for joint or foreign military sales, etc. These may influence the eventual acquisition strategy.

6.8. Schedule Assumptions and Methodologies (need date from ICD)


Guidance: Capture all schedule assumptions and methodologies for the materiel concept here. The Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date should match that identified by the sponsor in the ICD. Summarize and reference any reports from completed schedule analyses. Identify any disconnects between the operational need date and the expected concept maturation (e.g. technical readiness, manufacturing readiness, logistics infrastructure, etc.) that can be used in the risk assessment.



6.9. Cost Analysis Assumptions and Methodologies


Guidance: Capture all cost analysis assumptions and methodologies that will be used to estimate total cost of ownership of a materiel concept here. The costs for the entire life cycle of each concept should include the cost for R&D (including concept generation and prototyping), Investment, Production and Deployment, O&S, and Disposal. As the concept matures, more information will be available for cost analysis and the cost assumptions will also need to be revised over time. Costs should be estimated in base year dollars (i.e., without escalation for inflation in future years), and the assumed base year used needs to be included in the cost analysis assumptions. The dependencies and impacts on other systems and/or programs should also be addressed in the estimate and included in the assumptions.

Typically few technical, design, and operational details are available during early concept definition. Nevertheless, it is still possible to develop a cost analysis framework, which sets up a cost element structure (CES) that can be used to track costs as the concept matures. The list of cost elements should be sufficiently detailed to provide visibility into tracing how specific cost drivers contribute to the total cost of each life cycle phase. If possible, the CES should be based on cost work breakdown structures (WBS) for acquisition (i.e., R&D and Investment) described in MIL-HDBK-881A and for O&S in DODI 5000.4-M.

Using the best available information at concept inception, individual cost elements that comprise the cost estimate can be estimated by using one or more standard methods, such as analogy, cost estimating relationships, parametric estimating relationships, and engineering build-up (“bottom up”). Specialized cost estimating tools that could be useful for portions of or the entire cost estimate might also be available.

It is also necessary to determine the kind of input data that needs to be collected. Data should be collected from systems that possess similar features or capabilities to the concept under investigation. It is useful to examine more than one similar system to obtain cost range information for cost driving parameters of interest. Vendor or contractor quotes, catalog prices, and SME judgment can also provide useful inputs.

6.10. Cost Estimates


Guidance: Capture all cost estimates and document confidence levels. Initial cost estimates will necessarily be at a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) level, but both detail and fidelity will increase as the concept becomes more clearly defined. Cost estimates for proposed concepts should be sufficiently documented to ensure replication by an independent cost analyst; documentation should include a description of the basis of estimate (BoE) for each cost element, as well as a summary of the cost estimating rationale used to calculate the results, the inputs used to estimate the costs, a list of ground rules and assumptions, and, if available, a WBS dictionary describing each major cost element.

Results should be presented in base year dollars in several summary tables, showing cost breakouts by life cycle phase, by budget appropriation code, by CES or WBS cost element, and by year. For a ROM estimate, it may be appropriate to round the cost numbers in a way that is consistent with the accuracy of the estimate.



AFI 65-503, US Air Force Cost and Planning Factors, AFI 65-508, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures and DoD 5000.4-M, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures provide guidance for cost estimating for acquisition programs. However, the policy does not address specific techniques associated with up-front cost estimating and will require modification to include support of up-front cost estimating. An early planning integrated cost/risk estimating methodology will be the focus of a future standard supporting process improvement initiative to provide further guidance on cost estimating.

7. Risk Assessment and Decision-Certain Consequences

7.1. Operational Risk.


Guidance: Document risks of the materiel concept satisfying the capability gap in the operational environment. Also address risk with respect to completeness of the definition of the capability need statement and associated measures (MOEs, MOPs, KPPs, etc.). Be sure to consider items such as threats, infrastructure (C3I), policy, compliance issues, etc. Provide or reference a risk assessment and risk mitigation approach for each. Reference AFI 90-901, Operational Risk Management and AFI 91-202, USAF Mishap Prevention Program for additional guidance.

7.2. Program Risk


Guidance: Assess the risk in the proposed program using guidance in the Risk Management Guide for DOD Acquisitions or organization guide or instruction. Baseline the risks in cost, schedule, and performance and outline the risk mitigation approach. Identify in an event driven manner when an integrated risk assessment will be accomplished. Refer to AFI 63-101and the DoD Risk Management Guide for additional guidance.

7.3. Technology Risk


Guidance: Based on the CTEs and the technology maturation plan, quantify the risks associated with the technology challenges including anticipated cost and schedule impacts of the technology risks. Specifically address how the technology maturation approach mitigates risk with an event driven schedule (e.g., risk waterfall chart). As part of the technology risk assessment, describe the consequence of a technology not being matured to the point of inclusion in the concept. Describe the backup approach if applicable, and any impact to the concept satisfying the capability need.

7.4. Intelligence Risk


Guidance: Assess the risk associated with providing intelligence to the proposed program throughout the lifecycle of the system. This includes the ability to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate the information at the proper fidelity, quantities, and timeliness required to meet



program needs. If an Intelligence Health Assessment (IHA) has been performed, provide the results. The Intelligence Risk Assessment should include the possible impacts on the program and options for mitigating the risks. Reference CJCSI 3312.01A, Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification and AFI 63-101.

8. DOT-LPF Implications and Other Interdependencies


No detail elements at this time.

9. Conclusions (Capability Description; Traceability to Need Statement)


No detail elements at this time.


concept characterization and technical … › cop › pm › dau sponsored docu… · web...

Documents